DOCSLIB.ORG

Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh Ctesias and the Fall of Nineveh J.D.A. MACGINNIS The Persica of Ctesias are not extant but fragments are preserved in the works of many other ancient writers, notably Diodorus Siculus and Photius; Konig 1972 is an excellent edition of these excerpts.' The purpose of this article is to suggest that certain elements in Ctesias' description of the fall of Nineveh (best surviving in Diodorus Il.xxiv-xxviii) go back to details actually derived from an earlier siege and fall of Babylon. This is not to deny that the narrative of Ctesias—insofar as it is historical—does preserve material genuinely traceable to the fall of Nineveh, only that it has further incorporated extraneous particulars. Thus the barest outline of a Babylonian and a Median king uniting to bring about the end of the Assyrian empire is correct (Smith, 126-31; Roux 1980, 343^7) though the exact chronology has been much disputed (see J. Gates in the forthcoming volume 3. 2 of the new Cambridge Ancient History). Furthermore, the names of the protagonists are confused: Belesys could just be a corruption of Nabu-apla- usur (Nabopolassar) but Arbaces cannot be Umakishtar / Cyaxares, and in fact the suggestion of Jacoby (col. 2049) that Ctesias has inserted the names of two leading Persian officials of the time known from Xenophon, namely the Arbaces who commanded at Cunaxa and the Belesys who was satrap of Syria, is convincing. Another mistake in the Greek accounts is making the last king of Assyria Sardanapallos, that is Ashurbanipal. In fact the last king was Sinshar-ishkun; among the writers of antiquity only Abydenus names him correctly in the form Sarakos (Gadd 1923, p. 18 & n. 8). The other conflict of interest to us here is the revolt of Shamash-shum- ukin, the brother of Ashurbanipal. The background to this is as follows (cf. Smith 1925, Wiseman 1958, Roux 1980, 303-08, Grayson 1980): in 672 Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, convened ambassadors from all over his realm to swear cooperation with his plan for the succession by which one son, Ashurbanipal, was to be crowned king of Assyria and another, Shamash- ' I would like to thank Rupert Macey-Dare for his assistance in the writing of this article. The abbreviations used are those of the two modem Akkadian dictionaries: CAD (The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary) and AHw (the akkadisches Handworierbuch of W. von Soden). 38 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII.l shum-ukin, king of Babylon. This arrangement was put into effect following the death of Esarhaddon in 669 B.C. and worked peacefully until Shamash-shum-ukin rebelled against Assyria in 652; after some initial success Babylon was placed under siege in 650 and fell in 648 B.C. The sources for this are the annals and royal correspondence of Ashurbanipal, the Babylonian Chronicle and contemporary legal and economic documents. What interests us here is that there are correspondences between events in this rebellion and in Ctesias' account of the fall of Nineveh. Firstly, the length of the siege is given as two years by Ctesias (Diod. Il.xxvii.l): the siege of Nineveh in 612 lasted only two and one-half months (Gadd 1923, p. 17) whilst the siege of Babylon during the Shamash- shum-ukin rebellion lasted from April 11, 650 until at least February 29, 648 (when a legal document from Babylon records that "the enemy is encamped against the city"), if not in fact until April 15 of that year—the latest known date of Shamash-shum-ukin (Grayson 1980, p. 234-38). Gadd made the suggestion that the figuie of two years in Diodorus might be traced back to the fact that the siege of Nineveh was begun in 614 B.C., abandoned and recommenced successfully in 612, so that the whole operation was of two years' duration (Gadd 1923, p. 9 & 12, followed by Wiseman 1956, p. 14); or that somehow "the three months occupied by the final siege had been expanded by tradition into three years" (Gadd 1923, p. 17). This is a clever suggestion, though there is no firm evidence to support it, but even if it is correct it remains true that the reason for the transposition could be memory of the 650-648 siege. Secondly, the composition of the allies fits better the forces of Shamash-shum-ukin than those of Nabopolassar. They are given in Diodorus (II.xxiv.5) as the Medes, Persians, Babylonians and Arabs, and whilst it is true that Cyaxares and the Medes were at the forefront of the attacks on Assyria, there is nowhere in the cuneiform evidence any suggestion of the Arabs or Persians being involved in the fall of Nineveh. When on the other hand we look at the allies of Shamash-shum-ukin, we find that although the list includes Akkad (particularly Babylon, Borsippa and Sippar), the Chaldeans, the Arameans, the Sea-land, Elam, Gutium, Amurru and Meluhha (Luckenbill no. 789), it is clear that the Elamites and Arabs were the most important as it was they whose subjugation Ashurbanipal describes most conspicuously. In Elam the kings involved were, successively, Humban-nikash U, Tammaritu, Indabigash and Humban- hattash II (Carter & Stolper, p. 51); in Arabia it was Uaite' who "like Elam listened to the rebellious words of Akkad" (Luckenbill no. 817) and gave troops to Abiyate' and Ayamu to help Shamash-shum-ukin (Eph'al, p. 143- 44 & 155-56). Now of course the Elamites were not the Persians, but it is not unlikely that Ctesias used this appellation for them since part of the area subsequently occupied by the Persians was the former Elam (viz. the region from Susa to Persepolis) where the two peoples lived in symbiosis (Carter J.D.A. MacGinnis 39 & Stolper, p. 54-59); since he will have realised that no Greek will have known where Elam was; and, not least, since he was writing at the Persian court and would have had an interest in playing up the role of the Persians. Finally, Diodorus claims that the revolt was started by the leaders of the army (Goosens, p. 39), which corresponds well with the epigraph on a sculpture of Ashurbanipal (Luckenbill no. 1076). Thirdly, there is the celebrated story of Sardanapallos collecting together all his possessions and eunuchs into the palace, setting it alight and perishing in the flames (Konig, p. 127, 130 & 165; Diod. II.xxvii.2) which recalls Ashurbanipal telling how the Assyrian gods "cast Shamash-shum- ukin my hostile brother who had rebelled against me into the burning flames and destroyed him" (Luckenbill no. 794). This parallel has long been noted (e.g., Gadd, p. 19, Smith, p. 124, Goosens, p. 39) but not pursued. Gadd dismisses its importance in emphasising that "the end of Sin-shar-ishkun is expressly indicated" in the chronicle (p. 13) but in fact, as both his and Grayson's (1975 no. 3) editions of the text agree, the relevant line 44 is broken and reads "At that time Sin-shar-ishkun king of .]" Ass[yria . and whilst the death of that king may be inferred from the fact that a new king, Ashur-ubalht, is installed in Harran (line 50), nothing is said of the manner of his death: our only other clue is the tradition in Nicolaus Damascenus and Athenaius that he was slain by Arbaces (Gadd, p. 18 & n. 9). This again could refer to Shamash-shum-ukin as a fragment of the annals of Ashurbanipal excavated at Nimrud talks of ""dciSH.SHIR.MU.GI.NA / [sha ina M]E3 ina u2-si mah-su, that is "Shamash-shum-ukin [who in a bat]tle was wounded by an arrow" (E. Knudsen Iraq 29 (1967), p. 53, 1. 5-6). On the other hand, the detail of the story in which Sardanapallos gathers together his treasure and staff to destroy them cannot wholly apply to the case of Shamash-shum-ukin as we know that Ashurbanipal reviewed the goods, vehicles, horses, furniture and retainers of his brother after his death (Luckenbill nos. 795 & 1036). Accordingly, that part may well be pure fantasy. Nevertheless, the likelihood remains that the story of Greek tradition is an embellished version of the death of Shamash-shum-ukin. There are a few minor points to consider in addition: both Ashurbanipal in his dealings with Shamash-shum-ukin (Luckenbill no. 790) and Greek tellings of the fall of Nineveh (Diod. II.xxv.8; Xenophon Anab. III.iv.8) recount an ominous eclipse; Diodorus (II.xxvi.6 & xxvii.l) places the besieged Ninos (Nineveh) not on the Tigris but on the Euphrates as would be true of Babylon; the story of Belesys transporting the rubble of Nineveh to Babylon (Diodorus Il.xxviii) sounds like a folk-tale explaining the presence of the ziggurrat, which still existed as a ruined mound at the 40 Illinois Classical Studies, XIII. 1 time of Ctesias, not yet having been cleared away by Alexander the Great.^ Perhaps to note in this context is Ashurbanipal's claims to have collected earth from the cities of the conquered Elamites (Luckenbill no. 811), a symbolism also known from classical sources (e.g. Herodotus VI. 48). In summary, it might then be that elements of Ctesias' story of the fall of Nineveh owe their origin to the siege of Babylon during the Shamash- shum-ukin rebellion. Ctesias was the court physician to Artaxerxes II in the early fourth century B.C. and would have been able to travel to Babylon. Indeed, on the basis of his description of the palace (excavated by the Germans in the early years of this century), Goosens (p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • For a Tin Ingot: the Archaeology of Oral Interpretation
    Przekładaniec. A Journal of Literary Translation Special Issue (2013): 87–101 doi:10.4467/16891864ePC.13.039.1456 MARZENA CHROBAK FOR A TIN INGOT: THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF ORAL INTERPRETATION Abstract: This paper, based on research conducted by the pioneers of the history of oral interpreting (A. Hermann, I. Kurz) in the 1950s and on modern archaeological evidence, presents the earliest references to interpreters in the Bronze Age, in the Near East and the Mediterranean area (Mesopotamia, Egypt, Crete, Carthage). It discusses a Sumerian Early Dynastic List, a Sumerian-Eblaic glossary from Ebla, the Shu-ilishu’s Cylinder Seal, the inscriptions and reliefs from the Tombs of the Princes of Elephantine and of Horemheb, the mention of one-third of a mina of tin dispensed at Ugarit to the interpreter of Minoan merchants and the Hanno’s stele, as well as terms used by these early civilisations to denote an interpreter: eme-bal, targumannu, jmy-r(A) aw, and mls. Keywords: interpreting, archaeology, archaeological evidence, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Crete, Carthage, Bronze Age, Near East The year 1956 saw the publication of the inaugural volume of Contribu- tions to the History of Oral Interpretation (Beitrage Zur Geschichte des Dolmetschens), a monographic series of the Interpreter School, containing articles by A. Hermann, K. Thieme, and E. Glasser. These three authors, along with I. Kurz, are considered pioneers in the history of oral interpre- ting. Looking at the state of research in this fi eld fi fty years later, I believe that even though archaeology, which provides us with most of the infor- mation on ancient times, has brought about an overwhelming increase in knowledge, and the Internet revolution has made this knowledge widely accessible, present-day historians of oral interpretation content themselves with little more than citing their predecessors.
    [Show full text]
  • On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia* by Eva Von
    On Writing the History of Southern Mesopotamia* by Eva von Dassow — Colorado State University In his book Babylonia 689-627 B.C., G. Frame provides a maximally detailed his- tory of a specific region during a closely delimited time period, based on all available sources produced during that period or bearing on it. This review article critiques the methods used to derive the history from the sources and the conceptual framework used to apprehend the subject of the history. Babylonia 689-627 B. C , the revised version of Grant Frame's doc- toral dissertation, covers one of the most turbulent and exciting periods of Babylonian history, a time during which Babylon succes- sively experienced destruction and revival at Assyria's hands, then suf- fered rebellion and siege, and lastly awaited the opportunity to over- throw Assyria and inherit most of Assyria's empire. Although, as usual, the preserved textual sources cover these years unevenly, and often are insufficiently varied in type and origin (e.g., royal or non- royal, Babylonian or Assyrian), the years from Sennacherib's destruc- tion of Babylon in 689 to the eve of Nabopolassar's accession in 626 are also a richly documented period. Frame's work is an attempt to digest all of the available sources, including archaeological evidence as well as texts, in order to produce a maximally detailed history. Sur- rounding the book's core, chapters 5-9, which proceed reign by reign through this history, are chapters focussing on the sources (ch. 2), chronology (ch. 3), the composition of Babylonia's population (ch.
    [Show full text]
  • The Assyrian Period the Nee-Babylonian Period
    and ready to put their ban and curse on any intruder. A large collection of administrative documents of the Cassite period has been found at Nippur. The Assyrian Period The names of the kings of Assyria who reigned in the great city of Nineveh in the eighth and seventh centuries until its total destruction in 606 B.C. have been made familiar to us through Biblical traditions concerning the wars of Israel and Juda, the siege of Samaria and Jeru- salem, and even the prophet Jonah. From the palaces at Calah, Nineveh, Khorsabad, have come monumental sculptures and bas-reliefs, historical records on alabaster slabs and on clay prisms, and the many clay tab- lets from the royal libraries. Sargon, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Ashur- banipal- the Sardanapalus of the Greeks- carried their wars to Baby- lonia, to Elam, to the old Sumerian south on the shores of the Persian Gulf. Babylon became a province of the Assyrian Empire under the king's direct control, or entrusted to the hand of a royal brother or even to a native governor. The temples were restored by their order. Bricks stamped with the names of the foreign rulers have been found at Nip- pur, Kish, Ur and other Babylonian cities, and may be seen in the Babylonian Section of the University Museum. Sin-balatsu-iqbi was governor of Ur and a devoted servant of Ashurbanipal. The temple of Nannar was a total ruin. He repaired the tower, the enclosing wall, the great gate, the hall of justice, where his inscribed door-socket, in the shape of a green snake, was still in position.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ancient Mesopotamian Place Name “Meluḫḫa”
    THE ANCIENT MESOPOTAMIAN PLACE NAME “meluḫḫa” Stephan Hillyer Levitt INTRODUCTION The location of the Ancient Mesopotamian place name “Meluḫḫa” has proved to be difficult to determine. Most modern scholars assume it to be the area we associate with Indus Valley Civilization, now including the so-called Kulli culture of mountainous southern Baluchistan. As far as a possible place at which Meluḫḫa might have begun with an approach from the west, Sutkagen-dor in the Dasht valley is probably as good a place as any to suggest (Possehl 1996: 136–138; for map see 134, fig. 1). Leemans argued that Meluḫḫa was an area beyond Magan, and was to be identified with the Sind and coastal regions of Western India, including probably Gujarat. Magan he identified first with southeast Arabia (Oman), but later with both the Arabian and Persian sides of the Gulf of Oman, thus including the southeast coast of Iran, the area now known as Makran (1960a: 9, 162, 164; 1960b: 29; 1968: 219, 224, 226). Hansman identifies Meluḫḫa, on the basis of references to products of Meluḫḫa being brought down from the mountains, as eastern Baluchistan in what is today Pakistan. There are no mountains in the Indus plain that in its southern extent is Sind. Eastern Baluchistan, on the other hand, is marked throughout its southern and central parts by trellised ridges that run parallel to the western edge of the Indus plain (1973: 559–560; see map [=fig. 1] facing 554). Thapar argues that it is unlikely that a single name would refer to the entire area of a civilization as varied and widespread as Indus Valley Civilization.
    [Show full text]
  • Artaxerxes II
    Artaxerxes II John Shannahan BAncHist (Hons) (Macquarie University) Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University. May, 2015. ii Contents List of Illustrations v Abstract ix Declaration xi Acknowledgements xiii Abbreviations and Conventions xv Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 THE EARLY REIGN OF ARTAXERXES II The Birth of Artaxerxes to Cyrus’ Challenge 15 The Revolt of Cyrus 41 Observations on the Egyptians at Cunaxa 53 Royal Tactics at Cunaxa 61 The Repercussions of the Revolt 78 CHAPTER 2 399-390: COMBATING THE GREEKS Responses to Thibron, Dercylidas, and Agesilaus 87 The Role of Athens and the Persian Fleet 116 Evagoras the Opportunist and Carian Commanders 135 Artaxerxes’ First Invasion of Egypt: 392/1-390/89? 144 CHAPTER 3 389-380: THE KING’S PEACE AND CYPRUS The King’s Peace (387/6): Purpose and Influence 161 The Chronology of the 380s 172 CHAPTER 4 NUMISMATIC EXPRESSIONS OF SOLIDARITY Coinage in the Reign of Artaxerxes 197 The Baal/Figure in the Winged Disc Staters of Tiribazus 202 Catalogue 203 Date 212 Interpretation 214 Significance 223 Numismatic Iconography and Egyptian Independence 225 Four Comments on Achaemenid Motifs in 227 Philistian Coins iii The Figure in the Winged Disc in Samaria 232 The Pertinence of the Political Situation 241 CHAPTER 5 379-370: EGYPT Planning for the Second Invasion of Egypt 245 Pharnabazus’ Invasion of Egypt and Aftermath 259 CHAPTER 6 THE END OF THE REIGN Destabilisation in the West 267 The Nature of the Evidence 267 Summary of Current Analyses 268 Reconciliation 269 Court Intrigue and the End of Artaxerxes’ Reign 295 Conclusion: Artaxerxes the Diplomat 301 Bibliography 309 Dies 333 Issus 333 Mallus 335 Soli 337 Tarsus 338 Unknown 339 Figures 341 iv List of Illustrations MAP Map 1 Map of the Persian Empire xviii-xix Brosius, The Persians, 54-55 DIES Issus O1 Künker 174 (2010) 403 333 O2 Lanz 125 (2005) 426 333 O3 CNG 200 (2008) 63 333 O4 Künker 143 (2008) 233 333 R1 Babelon, Traité 2, pl.
    [Show full text]
  • Mesopotamia Timeline
    Mesopotamia Timeline 5000 BC - The Sumer form the first towns and cities. They use irrigation to farm large areas of land. 4000 BC - The Sumer establish powerful city-states building large ziggurats at the center of their cities as temples to their gods. 3500 BC - Much of lower Mesopotamia is inhabited by numerous Sumer city-states such as Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Kish, Lagash, and Nippur. 3300 BC - The Sumerians invent the first writing. They use pictures for words and inscribe them on clay tablets. 3200 BC - The Sumerians begin to use the wheel on vehicles. 3000 BC - The Sumerians start to implement mathematics using a number system with the base 60. 2700 BC - The famous Sumerian King Gilgamesh rules the city-state of Ur. 2400 BC - The Sumerian language is replaced by the Akkadian language as the primary spoken language in Mesopotamia. 2330 BC - Sargon I of the Akkadians conquers most of the Sumerian city states and creates the world's first empire, the Akkadian Empire. 2250 BC - King Naram-Sin of the Akkadians expands the empire to its largest state. He will rule for 50 years. 2100 BC - After the Akkadian Empire crumbles, the Sumerians once again gain power. The city of Ur is rebuilt. 1900 BC - The Assyrians rise to power in northern Mesopotamia. 1792 BC - Hammurabi becomes king of Babylon. He establishes the Code of Hammurabi and Babylon soon takes over much of Mesopotamia. 1781 BC - King Shamshi-Adad of the Assyrians dies. The First Assyrian Empire is soon taken over by the Babylonians. 1750 BC - Hammurabi dies and the First Babylonian Empire begins to fall apart.
    [Show full text]
  • Republic of Iraq
    Republic of Iraq Babylon Nomination Dossier for Inscription of the Property on the World Heritage List January 2018 stnel oC fobalbaT Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 1 State Party .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Province ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 Name of property ............................................................................................................................................... 1 Geographical coordinates to the nearest second ................................................................................................. 1 Center ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 N 32° 32’ 31.09”, E 44° 25’ 15.00” ..................................................................................................................... 1 Textural description of the boundary .................................................................................................................. 1 Criteria under which the property is nominated .................................................................................................. 4 Draft statement
    [Show full text]
  • The Outbreak of the Rebellion of Cyrus the Younger Jeffrey Rop
    The Outbreak of the Rebellion of Cyrus the Younger Jeffrey Rop N THE ANABASIS, Xenophon asserts that the Persian prince Cyrus the Younger was falsely accused of plotting a coup I d’état against King Artaxerxes II shortly after his accession to the throne in 404 BCE. Spared from execution by the Queen Mother Parysatis, Cyrus returned to Lydia determined to seize the throne for himself. He secretly prepared his rebellion by securing access to thousands of Greek hoplites, winning over Persian officials and most of the Greek cities of Ionia, and continuing to send tribute and assurances of his loyalty to the unsuspecting King (1.1).1 In Xenophon’s timeline, the rebellion was not official until sometime between the muster of his army at Sardis in spring 401, which spurred his rival Tissaphernes to warn Artaxerxes (1.2.4–5), and his arrival several months later at Thapsacus on the Euphrates, where Cyrus first openly an- nounced his true intentions (1.4.11). Questioning the “strange blindness” of Artaxerxes in light of Cyrus’ seemingly obvious preparations for revolt, Pierre Briant proposed an alternative timeline placing the outbreak of the rebellion almost immediately after Cyrus’ return to Sardis in late 404 or early 403.2 In his reconstruction, the King allowed Cyrus 1 See also Ctesias FGrHist 688 F 16.59, Diod. 14.19, Plut. Artax. 3–4. 2 Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (Winona Lake 2002) 617–620. J. K. Anderson, Xenophon (New York 1974) 80, expresses a similar skepticism. Briant concludes his discussion by stating that the rebellion officially (Briant does not define “official,” but I take it to mean when either the King or Cyrus declared it publicly) began in 401 with the muster of Cyrus’ army at Sardis, but it is nonetheless appropriate to characterize Briant’s position as dating the official outbreak of the revolt to 404/3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Satrap of Western Anatolia and the Greeks
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2017 The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Eyal Meyer University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the Ancient History, Greek and Roman through Late Antiquity Commons Recommended Citation Meyer, Eyal, "The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks" (2017). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 2473. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/2473 For more information, please contact [email protected]. The aS trap Of Western Anatolia And The Greeks Abstract This dissertation explores the extent to which Persian policies in the western satrapies originated from the provincial capitals in the Anatolian periphery rather than from the royal centers in the Persian heartland in the fifth ec ntury BC. I begin by establishing that the Persian administrative apparatus was a product of a grand reform initiated by Darius I, which was aimed at producing a more uniform and centralized administrative infrastructure. In the following chapter I show that the provincial administration was embedded with chancellors, scribes, secretaries and military personnel of royal status and that the satrapies were periodically inspected by the Persian King or his loyal agents, which allowed to central authorities to monitory the provinces. In chapter three I delineate the extent of satrapal authority, responsibility and resources, and conclude that the satraps were supplied with considerable resources which enabled to fulfill the duties of their office. After the power dynamic between the Great Persian King and his provincial governors and the nature of the office of satrap has been analyzed, I begin a diachronic scrutiny of Greco-Persian interactions in the fifth century BC.
    [Show full text]
  • Tayinat's Building XVI: the Religious Dimensions and Significance of A
    Tayinat’s Building XVI: The Religious Dimensions and Significance of a Tripartite Temple at Neo-Assyrian Kunulua by Douglas Neal Petrovich A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto © Copyright by Douglas Neal Petrovich, 2016 Building XVI at Tell Tayinat: The Religious Dimensions and Significance of a Tripartite Temple at Neo-Assyrian Kunulua Douglas N. Petrovich Doctor of Philosophy Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations University of Toronto 2016 Abstract After the collapse of the Hittite Empire and most of the power structures in the Levant at the end of the Late Bronze Age, new kingdoms and powerful city-states arose to fill the vacuum over the course of the Iron Age. One new player that surfaced on the regional scene was the Kingdom of Palistin, which was centered at Kunulua, the ancient capital that has been identified positively with the site of Tell Tayinat in the Amuq Valley. The archaeological and epigraphical evidence that has surfaced in recent years has revealed that Palistin was a formidable kingdom, with numerous cities and territories having been enveloped within its orb. Kunulua and its kingdom eventually fell prey to the Neo-Assyrian Empire, which decimated the capital in 738 BC under Tiglath-pileser III. After Kunulua was rebuilt under Neo- Assyrian control, the city served as a provincial capital under Neo-Assyrian administration. Excavations of the 1930s uncovered a palatial district atop the tell, including a temple (Building II) that was adjacent to the main bit hilani palace of the king (Building I).
    [Show full text]
  • 2 the Assyrian Empire, the Conquest of Israel, and the Colonization of Judah 37 I
    ISRAEL AND EMPIRE ii ISRAEL AND EMPIRE A Postcolonial History of Israel and Early Judaism Leo G. Perdue and Warren Carter Edited by Coleman A. Baker LONDON • NEW DELHI • NEW YORK • SYDNEY 1 Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway London New York WC1B 3DP NY 10018 UK USA www.bloomsbury.com Bloomsbury, T&T Clark and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 © Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker, 2015 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Leo G. Perdue, Warren Carter and Coleman A. Baker have asserted their rights under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Authors of this work. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the authors. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-0-56705-409-8 PB: 978-0-56724-328-7 ePDF: 978-0-56728-051-0 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Typeset by Forthcoming Publications (www.forthpub.com) 1 Contents Abbreviations vii Preface ix Introduction: Empires, Colonies, and Postcolonial Interpretation 1 I.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Assyrian Treaties As a Source for the Historian: Bonds of Friendship, the Vigilant Subject and the Vengeful KingS Treaty
    WRITING NEO-ASSYRIAN HISTORY Sources, Problems, and Approaches Proceedings of an International Conference Held at the University of Helsinki on September 22-25, 2014 Edited by G.B. Lanfranchi, R. Mattila and R. Rollinger THE NEO-ASSYRIAN TEXT CORPUS PROJECT 2019 STATE ARCHIVES OF ASSYRIA STUDIES Published by the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki in association with the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research Project Director Simo Parpola VOLUME XXX G.B. Lanfranchi, R. Mattila and R. Rollinger (eds.) WRITING NEO-ASSYRIAN HISTORY SOURCES, PROBLEMS, AND APPROACHES THE NEO- ASSYRIAN TEXT CORPUS PROJECT State Archives of Assyria Studies is a series of monographic studies relating to and supplementing the text editions published in the SAA series. Manuscripts are accepted in English, French and German. The responsibility for the contents of the volumes rests entirely with the authors. © 2019 by the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki and the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research All Rights Reserved Published with the support of the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research Set in Times The Assyrian Royal Seal emblem drawn by Dominique Collon from original Seventh Century B.C. impressions (BM 84672 and 84677) in the British Museum Cover: Assyrian scribes recording spoils of war. Wall painting in the palace of Til-Barsip. After A. Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon (Paris, 1961), fig. 348. Typesetting by G.B. Lanfranchi Cover typography by Teemu Lipasti and Mikko Heikkinen Printed in the USA ISBN-13 978-952-10-9503-0 (Volume 30) ISSN 1235-1032 (SAAS) ISSN 1798-7431 (PFFAR) CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. vii Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi, Raija Mattila, Robert Rollinger, Introduction ..............................
    [Show full text]